Well, first, of course, evolution is not fact. But, if it were, so what? The Bible teaches, like evolution (and before Darwin), that the human body is made up of the same elements and compounds found in the soil. It also teaches that the human body was formed before the human soul. Therefore, if evolution were true, the human body would have evolved and, then, God would have given the evolved body a soul.
Since this is all true, why do we fight evolution? We fight evolution because its supporters teach that it is a fact or that it is more than a hypothesis.
First, we must give the Devil his due; that is, some of the theistic evolution websites are very persuasive. However, they are very persuasive only to those with little or no knowledge on the subject of evolution.
Theistic evolutionists believe that God used evolution in the process of creating man. Their failure is that they engage in an uncritical acceptance of certain scientific postulates and principles. In other words, they either haven’t done their homework or they haven’t done enough homework. For example, they accept the transitional forms (ape-men, not man-apes) as fact when, in reality, there is not perfect agreement in the scientific community as to the principles supporting the conclusions regarding these so-called transitional forms.
If they existed, extreme man-apes would simply have been man-apes that could be mistaken for human beings.
There is disagreement in the evolutionary scientific community as to the validity of methods used to analyze and evaluate fossils. However, let us assume, for the moment, that the methods are valid. What would this mean?
What it would mean is that there were extinct “man-apes.” What would these man-apes have been. There are two views – evolutionary and data.
The evolutionary view is that the man-apes were transitional forms; that is, life-forms between more ancient apes and man.
The man-apes would have been ancient apes with higher intelligence and more human-looking appearance than modern apes.
Analysis of Views
The evolutionary view is based on a mixture of data and fantasy. The fantasy is that the man-apes gave birth to human beings. However, no birth fossils (fossils of mothers giving birth to babies) have ever been found.
The data view is always correct because it simply reports the facts.
If fossil analysis/evaluation methodologies are valid, there were ancient apes with higher intelligence and more human-looking appearance than modern apes. There are no birth fossils to prove that they gave birth to human beings.
It is common knowledge that some life-forms are extinct (no longer exist); for example, the dinosaurs. The so-called transitional forms leading up to human beings, if we accept the scientific methodology as reliable, would have simply been more anthropomorphic (more human-looking) apes now extinct and nothing more. Also, any so-called, human-like abilities would be accounted for by more advanced intelligence than modern apes.
In simpler terms, if the transitional forms are real:
They would have simply been smarter, more human-looking APES from which man did NOT descend (did NOT evolve).
PS: In the future, we will refer to these “unproven” creatures as “man-apes.”
If evolution were true, there would have to be MSSF (mixed species society fossils). That is, fossils of prehumans and humans together. These would have to exist since the humans would have to have been cared for and raised by the prehumans. But, none have ever been found.
We have proven that similarity is not proof of evolution (see Evolution’s Great Fallacy). So, what do we have below? Evolutionists would say, “See how the skull evolved over time.” But what we really have is nothing more than a set of skulls of different apes and of a human being lined up by similarity.
Lined Up By Similarity
To make our point clearer, here are the same skulls lined up by age.
Lined Up By Age
The great fallacy of evolution is:
Similarity proves parentage.
In other words because two animals resemble each other one must give birth to the other . Well, let’s see. A zebra resembles a horse. That must mean zebras give birth to horses or horses give birth to zebras. An alligator is similar to a crocodile; therefore, one of them must give birth to the other. And then there’s the turtles and tortoises and the frogs and toads and the dolphins and porpoises and the donkeys and mules. We could go on.
So, sorry evolutionists but:
Similarity does not prove parentage.
Are the days of Genesis 24-hour days? Well, first, we must define the context of the question. There are two contexts. They are science and truth. Now, remember:
Science isn’t necessarily truth.
See our discussion elsewhere on the subject of the difference between science and truth.
In terms of science and not truth, the days of Genesis:
Might not be 24-hour days.
In terms of truth and not science
The days of Genesis are 24-hour days.
The most important thing to remember on the “day length” question is that:
Science does not disprove the Bible.
Science does disprove the Koran.
Science does disprove every other so-called holy book on the planet.
Something that everyone overlooks is that if an ancient ape were to give birth to a prehuman or a prehuman were to give birth to a human being, who would they have offspring with since there would be no one else of their kind. The prehuman would have to mate with an ancient ape but that would result in reverse evolution. The human being would have to mate with a prehuman but that, too, would result in reverse evolution. Reverse evolution means:
Evolution could never move forward.
God, in his wisdom, created his living creations so that they cannot interbreed. A gorilla has 24 pairs of 48 chromosomes. A human being has 23 pairs of 46 chromosomes. This makes it organochemically impossible for a gorilla and a human being to have offspring together.
Why did God make some animals superficially resemble human beings?
One reason is to highlight the difference between animal and human life. The orangutan, gorilla, chimpanzee, and bonobo have only one/vigintillionth (1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000th) the IQ of a newborn baby. So-called demonstrations of intelligence are programmatic inteligence, like programming a computer. As far as any so-called proofs of creative, problem-solving intelligence, in every case, the animal used heuristic (trial-and-error) neural net processing. In other words, the animals are simply biological neural nets. Whereas a human being transcends neural net processes by a factor of Rayo’s number.
In insanely oversimplified terms, a gorilla can peel a banana while a human being can tell you the molecular composition of the banana in Chinese.
We have now established that evolutionists believe in intelligent design. This is the intelligent design of BIO-AI (Biological Artificial Intelligences). These BIO-AI are called epochal retroviruses. This changes everything. Get ready, Supreme Court!
Inductive logic has its limits.
Its validity decreases as the complexity of your subject increases.
In physics, you can take simple measurements that validate inductive thinking; for example, how long it takes an apple to fall from a tree. In evolutionary theory, you cannot; for example, the genetic sequencing of retroviruses that existed a billion years ago.
In science, you pursue the hypothesis that is potentially provable; that is, there is the possibility of proving it. Proof consists of something that is experimentally repeatable. The so-called proof of evolution is all of biological history.
Well, now, we have two problems:
No one has ever witnessed all of biological history; therefore, we don’t have even a single experiment to begin to build a proof.
If we had a (past-only) time machine and could live billions of years, we could witness all of biological history but we would still only have a single experiment and could not “perform” additional experiments; therefore, we could not establish experimental repeatability and, therefore, could not build a proof.
Now, what evolutionists do in the face of this insurmountable obstacle is, like cheaters often do, to tell a lie. They say:
Well, you see, we are using inductive logic (many instances constitute proof).
The truth is:
Evolutionists use inductive interpretation (many instances inspire an opinion).
Truth and science are two different things. Science includes a type of truth, universal truth. Universal truth is the truth that can be known through universal perception; that is, it is the truth that can be known by anyone through their perception of their environment. Now, not all truth can be known by everyone. One reason this is so is that some people simply don’t have the IQ, the intelligence, to know certain things.
Now, science also includes “pretruth.” Pretruth – hypothesis and theory – are ideas that are being studied to determine if they are true. These ideas are uncertainties and potential truths. Therefore, science includes both universal truth and uncertainty (potential truth).
In simple terms, science includes a mix of universal truth and something else.
The words highlighted in green all refer to the same thing.
The simplest way to refute evolution is to say:
Evolution is an hypothesis with an incomplete data set and, remember, hypotheses may not be taught as established science in science classes.
For an in-depth discussion see Our Main Thesis: “The Hypothesis Proof” (True Evolution).
The Seven Keys
By Dr. Michael Bisconti
The “Seven Keys” delineate (set forth) a necessarily difficult to understand view of the origin of life, which is held by all lovers of both truth and science. The “Seven Keys” and the law of hermeticism, which is defined by them, were developed by Dr. Michael Bisconti.
- Truth and science are two different things.
- Universal truth is a subset of science.
- True evolution is not taught in our schools and true creationism is not taught in our churches.
- The hypothesis of evolution can be tolerated but the theory of evolution should be opposed.
- As a matter of truth, everyone should believe in intelligent design, which creationism elaborates.
- Even evolutionists believe in intelligent design – the intelligent design of the artificial intelligence of the retroviruses.
- As a matter of science but not truth, the “theory of indeterminate design” replaces evolution, creationism, and intelligent design.
The law of the average mind says:
The law of hermeticism, which is explained by the seven keys,
may be too difficult for some people to understand.
Therefore, the law of the average mind requires that we provide the following questions and answers:
- Did God create everything? Yes.
- Did God create man? Yes.
- Is evolution a fact? No.
- Is evolution a theory? No.
- Is evolution an hypothesis, which involves insufficient evidence? Yes.